Digital Infrastructures: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


(https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf)
(https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf)
=Examples=
From open to closed, a spectrum:
* Government-Led Systems => Cuba’s state-owned telecom, ETECSA.
Fully controlled and
operated by the state, with
centralized decision-making
and oversight.
* Closed-Access Systems => Starlink: vertically integrated, no external access or servicelayer integration.
Infrastructure is controlled
by a single entity with no
third-party participation.
Typically streamlined but
not open to external input.
* Private Consortium-Led Systems => mVodafone & Orange’s Open RAN project in Europe.
Managed by a few
private actors who share
infrastructure governance.
Participation is limited to
members of the consortium.
* Permissioned Networks => Some government cloud systems or health data exchanges.
Access is limited to
approved actors.
* Open Standards- Based Infrastructure => Estonia’s X-Road.
Built on transparent, publicly
available standards enabling
interoperability and modular
development.
* Multistakeholder Systems => Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br).
Shared governance among
the government, the private
sector, and civil society with
shared responsibilities in
design and oversight.
* Permissionless Open Networks => Guifi.net in Spain.
Participation and
contribution are open to any
actor with varying degrees of
prior approval.
* Decentralized Autonomous Networks => Emerging Web3 and blockchain-based infrastructures.
No central authority;
governance and operation
are distributed.
=Discussion=
Bell J. at al. :
"The most promising systems combine open standards, modular design,
and multistakeholder governance without defaulting to either fully open or
fully closed extremes.
The India Stack is a case in point: while the first wave of digital
infrastructure solutions heavily relies on government-mandated identity
and payments infrastructure, it has inspired a second generation of more
open and distributed services with open API and open protocols like
Beckn. Today, this hybrid model has enabled 8.6 billion mobile payments
per month for 1.2 billion people – at minimal cost and maximum scale.
However, the model is not without risks. The concentration of sensitive
personal data within core systems means that breaches, when they occur,
can have outsized consequences. Building openness must go hand in
hand with strong data protection, redress mechanisms, and continuous
security reinforcement.
Importantly, openness does not mean insecurity. Having multiple actors
participating in a system actually enhances resilience and reduces the
risks associated with centralized blind spots or single points of failure.
Additionally, with the right protocols, transparency can enhance trust
and resilience. Properly implemented, open standards and protocols can
strengthen system resilience and public trust. Estonia’s X-Road shows
how open-by-design systems can scale securely. As digital infrastructure
becomes the backbone of economies and, designing for openness, where
appropriate, is not just a technical choice, but a state imperative.
Finally, policymakers do not need to choose between strictly open or
closed infrastructure – these are false binaries. Instead, they must ask:
Where do we need control, and where can openness enhance legitimacy,
innovation, or trust? A modular, hybrid design, rooted in open standards
and strong governance, offers the best of both worlds."
(https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf)




Line 19: Line 130:


URL = https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf
URL = https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf
[[Category:Commons Infrastructure]]


[[Category:Public_Services]]
[[Category:Public_Services]]
[[Category:Policy]]
[[Category:Policy]]
[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Commons_Infrastructure]]

Revision as of 11:47, 16 October 2025

Description

Mishra, V., Bell, J. et al. :

"Digital infrastructure encompasses not only physical elements like broadband networks, data centers, and cloud services but also the laws, standards, and protocols that govern transparency, access and control of data. By developing comprehensive, long-term strategies for the design, scope and governance of digital infrastructure, governments can influence the social, economic and civic impact of new technologies, as they emerge rather than after the fact."

(https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf)


Examples

From open to closed, a spectrum:

  • Government-Led Systems => Cuba’s state-owned telecom, ETECSA.

Fully controlled and operated by the state, with centralized decision-making and oversight.


  • Closed-Access Systems => Starlink: vertically integrated, no external access or servicelayer integration.

Infrastructure is controlled by a single entity with no third-party participation. Typically streamlined but not open to external input.


  • Private Consortium-Led Systems => mVodafone & Orange’s Open RAN project in Europe.

Managed by a few private actors who share infrastructure governance. Participation is limited to members of the consortium.


  • Permissioned Networks => Some government cloud systems or health data exchanges.

Access is limited to approved actors.


  • Open Standards- Based Infrastructure => Estonia’s X-Road.

Built on transparent, publicly available standards enabling interoperability and modular development.


  • Multistakeholder Systems => Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br).

Shared governance among the government, the private sector, and civil society with shared responsibilities in design and oversight.


  • Permissionless Open Networks => Guifi.net in Spain.

Participation and contribution are open to any actor with varying degrees of prior approval.


  • Decentralized Autonomous Networks => Emerging Web3 and blockchain-based infrastructures.

No central authority; governance and operation are distributed.


Discussion

Bell J. at al. :

"The most promising systems combine open standards, modular design, and multistakeholder governance without defaulting to either fully open or fully closed extremes.

The India Stack is a case in point: while the first wave of digital infrastructure solutions heavily relies on government-mandated identity and payments infrastructure, it has inspired a second generation of more open and distributed services with open API and open protocols like Beckn. Today, this hybrid model has enabled 8.6 billion mobile payments per month for 1.2 billion people – at minimal cost and maximum scale. However, the model is not without risks. The concentration of sensitive personal data within core systems means that breaches, when they occur, can have outsized consequences. Building openness must go hand in hand with strong data protection, redress mechanisms, and continuous security reinforcement.

Importantly, openness does not mean insecurity. Having multiple actors participating in a system actually enhances resilience and reduces the risks associated with centralized blind spots or single points of failure. Additionally, with the right protocols, transparency can enhance trust and resilience. Properly implemented, open standards and protocols can strengthen system resilience and public trust. Estonia’s X-Road shows how open-by-design systems can scale securely. As digital infrastructure becomes the backbone of economies and, designing for openness, where appropriate, is not just a technical choice, but a state imperative. Finally, policymakers do not need to choose between strictly open or closed infrastructure – these are false binaries. Instead, they must ask: Where do we need control, and where can openness enhance legitimacy, innovation, or trust? A modular, hybrid design, rooted in open standards and strong governance, offers the best of both worlds."

(https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf)




More information

  • Report: Nicole, S., Mishra, V., Bell, J., Kastrop, C., Rodriguez, M. (2025, May). Digital Infrastructure Solutions to Empower Citizens: A Toolkit for Policymakers. Project Liberty Institute & Global Solutions Initiative.

URL = https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Project_Liberty_Institute_Digital_Infrastructure_Solutions_Policymakers_Toolkit.pdf